Mario Rizzo uses the term "rule consequentialism" to describe Mises's social philosophy. I think that is right. His scientific approach to economics is a version of the Weberian ideal of positive analysis prior to the rise of positivistic philosophy of science. It is a strict methodology of mean-ends analysis, where the ends pursued are treated as given, and the analysis is about the effectiveness of chosen means to satisfy given ends. But the conclusions one derives from that analysis fed into Mises's social philosophy. As he often stated from Liberalism to Human Action, the classical liberal position emerges from the persistent and consistent application of the teachings of praxeology to the realm of public policy.
Critical to Mises's system is "Ricardo's Law of Association", or his theory of social cooperation under the division of labor. In Mises's work it is the greater productivity of the division of labor, and the ability of the private property order to realize the gains from social cooperation that speak to the superiority of liberalism.
Henry Hazlitt's The Foundations of Morality tried to summarize the existing literature from Smith and Hume to Sidgwick and Wicksteed to Mises on rule consequentialism. I have a current working paper that discusses Hazlitt's contributions, including Foundations. When I started my book series with Edward Elgar Publishing -- New Thinking in Political Economy -- one of the first books I acquired for the series was Leland Yeager's Ethics as Social Science, which is a contemporary update and refinement of the arguments in Mises and Hazlitt.